Hail Norochcholai! Hail the Chief!
Susantha Goonatilake
The Norochcholai site for coal project.
|
COAL POWER PLANT: One of the most significant steps taken by the
present President shunning the inaction of both Chandrika Kumaratunga
and Ranil Wickremasinghe was the firm decision to go ahead with the
Norochcholai coal power plant.
This was a very self-evident decision which had been prevented from
being taken much earlier by a section of the Catholic Church and an
equally obscurantist, uninformed environmental lobby. While
congratulating the President for taking this obvious step, I wish to put
some facts into perspective.
I have some personal stake in this. I was Vice-Chairman of the Ceylon
Electricity Board in the late 1970s when the coal power plant was first
mooted. Secondly, I have been professionally involved in technology
assessment including environmental assessment, and thirdly, I was
involved with the cement plant at Puttalam which is being held up as the
great polluter (which of course it is now) which would be replicated in
the nearby coal power plant.
Let us take a snapshot view of our energy, simplifying somewhat for a
lay audience. One can arrange the cheapness of commonly available
electrical energy in a descending order from hydropower to coal power to
diesel generated power to gas turbines. To install hydropower, it takes
time to build dams etc.
A coal power plant could be built in a shorter time; diesel power
plant could be bought quicker than coal power and gas turbines still
quicker. Most of our major hydropower resources were exhausted during
the Mahaveli development and thereafter. There is the potential of mini
Hydro plants, that is very small hydropower plants. But their total
potential is small. To simplify matters, the cheapest available energy
that is reliable, in that the technology is fully proven, is coal.
We had an energy crisis a few years ago with hours-long power cuts.
Further, our energy is one of the most expensive in the world. This
means consumers - both domestic and commercial pay heavily. In our bid
to attract foreign investment for new industries, cost and reliability
of energy is an important factor. The coal power plant is an obvious
choice to give reliable energy at relatively low cost.
During the last few decades instead of going into this cheap energy
source, we have been adding other sources of more expensive power at
Kelanitissa. Various objections were made against the obvious coal power
choice.
The coal power plant was first mooted in the late 1970s when I was
Vice-Chairman of the CEB. It was to be located at Trincomalee but, if my
memory serves correct, due to some environmental objections, the idea
was dropped. This was not such a major disaster because Mahaveli was in
a full construction phase then and we were expecting a large addition of
hydro power to the grid. But such hydro power is liable to the vagaries
of the weather and rainfall.
So one should have additional power in the form of thermal plant. For
this, a gas turbine was hurriedly added in the early 80s. (Incidentally
the particular choice for this gas turbine was done over the objections
of all the technical committees in the CEB as well as its Board through
a manipulated Cabinet decision influenced by the then minister who
recommended a more costly gas turbine instead of the lowest bidder with
an identical technology.)
Since then, the easy path of adding costly plant has been followed.
When the Norochcholai site was mooted, the sections of the Catholic
Church took the lead in objecting to the plant. The reasons given for
objection have been a mixed bag. One of the potent arguments had been
that the coal power plant would pollute the area like the nearby
Puttalam cement plant. But the pollution created by the cement plant is
not because of an inherent design fault, but because of extremely poor
upkeep and maintenance.
I know this well. As a young trainee engineer in Germany, I helped
develop the electrostatic dust removal for the cement plant. It was very
standard technology and would have given absorption of pollutants up to
nearly hundred per cent. Unfortunately through the years, that plant was
poorly maintained and many of the technicians trained for the purpose
were moved out or left. The present Puttalam pollution is an avoidable
one, entirely man-made.
Pollutants are carried to great distances by the air. Thus pollution
from the heavily industrialised German Ruhr region was carried to the
Nordic countries and affected their forests badly. A few years ago I was
in a little sub committee meeting at the SLAAS to discuss the
environmental consequences of the coal power plant.
When I asked whether there were any coal power plants across in
nearby India - which I had been earlier informed there were - and what
would be their wind borne pollution in and around the Puttalam and
Kalpitiya area, no one could answer.
The bottom line is that coal power plant emissions can be transported
large distances so that one must consider also possible Indian pollution
not just that of our plants alone. But the central consideration is that
coal power plants operate in highly populated areas across the world and
there is proven technology to make them less polluting.
Industrialisation has always been accompanied by some degree of
environmental impact and pollution. Environment concerns had risen only
recently, over the last 40 years. When Britain and Europe were
developing rapidly, there was a huge amount of pollution. Now there is
of course consideration of environmental impact. And China and India,
the new emerging giants also produce pollution as they race ahead in
their industrialisation.
Those working in the Environmental Impact Assessment field are well
aware that industrialists in other countries both in the private and
public sector generally tend to attack environmental assessment as
technology arrestment.
When the environmental conference in Ro took place, these factors
were discussed and taken into account. A big United Nations meeting was
held in Paris shortly thereafter to consider industrialisation in view
of the new global considerations on environmental damage. (I was the
rapporteur for this meeting and was later expected to bring out a book
summarising the various issues. Unfortunately I failed in my duty to
edit some of the excellent papers and bring out the book.)
So the choice of location of an industry or any plant has to choose
between its benefits and cost to the environment. Technology assessment
for environmental impact has to be balanced so that it does not lead to
technology arrestment.
For a country desiring to rapidly industrialize like Sri Lanka, it is
natural that sometimes the trade off will result in setting up of
industries that will inevitably damage the environment somewhat for the
sake of the increased economic benefits that it would ultimately bring.
Such decisions are not easy and are often an uncomfortable trade off.
But in our coal power plant case, the environmental costs are
manageable.
There has also been the engineering lunatic fringe that has been
opposing the coal power plant saying that technologies like wind power
and wave power should be used instead. These are still not standard
technologies that can be plucked off the shelf. An observation is called
for here. Most engineers in developing countries are strongly oriented
towards buying established technologies because those in
semi-experimental stages carry unwanted risks both technological and
financial.
That is why many firms prefer to buy foreign technologies that have a
proven track record instead of developing local ones that they may have
to nurture and muddle through. This is an unfortunate but true fact of
the real world. In Sri Lanka, the university engineering field has grown
up tangential to industrial development unlike in the case of India,
China and even smaller countries like Malaysia.
There, the intimate link between industry and academia ensures that
real life solutions are quickly arrived at.
An additional factor is that key decision-makers in these states are
technology oriented. In the case of India, even among civil servants,
the science and technology ethos first begun by Nehru permeates
throughout the state sector. In the case of China, most political
decision-makers are engineers as is the case of Taiwan and so on. The
result is that decisions are made quickly on industrial requirements.
But our industry and development oriented engineers have stood their
ground. A major champion of coal power in Sri Lanka for decades was the
late Carlo Fernando; if my memory serves me correct, both a good
Catholic as well as having served in the coal power industry in the UK.
Competent experts like Dr. Siyambalapitiya wrote many popular articles
and gave many lectures at engineering and professional fora illustrating
the rationality of the coal option.
A special mention should be made of the CEB General Manager Ranjit
Fonseka who, unusual among the usual supine public officials, has
fearlessly advocated the coal power option. A grateful nation, its
industries and consumers will thank them and the commonsensical
President who gave the final go-ahead. Wait now for cheaper and reliable
power. Switch the lights on. |